Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
What gave you the impression that I believe that "you need to say that you are not speaking of a legal contract any time you use the word contract" ?
The person you accused of not knowing the meaning of the word contract, used the word in the legal sense. As is not uncommon with this word. The dictionary.com link that you so kindly provided, lists this definition at number 2. I understand that from high horses, it might be quite difficult for you to reach definition number 2 when it is easier to accuse others of ignorance instead.
As long as someone is using the word in at least one of the correct senses, he cannot be said to have "no idea... what the word contract means". Since you said so, you appeared to be a specimen of the deadly combination of idiot and arrogant.
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
Oops, sorry. Forgot that it must be too dizzy from your high horse to be able to see clearly. Let's take it slowly, ok?
like you, he mistakenly believes the word contract always involves the Law
Please let me know where I said that the word contract always involves the Law?
thanks Bingo
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
I use the term contract in its non-legal sense
1. You use a word commonly used in legal context, in a "non-legal sense". Without at first mentioning so. 2. You expect others to understand you. Rather, you accuse them of having "no idea... what the word contract means".
Interesting. Is it fun to ride that high horse of yours?
Or---when in debugging mode you could send some insensitive unencrypted traffic. That way, people can have their encryption and network debuggers can have their not-encryption.
But the "bug" appears only when the encryption is turned on. Only for data for which encryption is turned on. Now what?
While I agree with most of your points, the browser message you suggest is too scary. A HTTPS connection based on a self-signed cert is at least as secure as plain old HTTP. A browser which does not warn against plain old HTTP does not have the moral authority to warn so severely against self-signed certs. The only thing it can say is that such a connection should not be considered "secure" simply by its being HTTPS.
But how is self-signed cert less secure than plain old HTTP? Browser does not give any warnings when encountering unencrypted HTTP "OMG, you could be hacked, unencrypted page!!!". Plain old HTTP is also susceptible to MITM attack, only you don't even need MITM attack to snoop.
In this case, one can question whether the studios have the (moral and legal) right to the actors' image beyond what they've filmed.
Which actor are you talking about? GP was talking about rendered models. Which don't even necessarily look like an existing human being: it could be totally imaginary. There is no "actor" involved.
Got it! Bing is written in perl. They do regular expression matching while crawling and forgot to have a \E... \Q escape sequence for the regex matching. They got so much perl code on CPAN, full of special characters, that somehow the crawler engine went into an infinite loop.
I propose you give me an alternate theory that predicts WHY all those changes in nature happen. (rising temperatures, rising sea-levels, changing birdtrek-paterns, migrating insects...)
This is science we are talking about, aren't we? Lack of alternate theories does not give credence to a theory, at least in science. This is not to say there is a dearth of alternate theories.
there are climate scientists trying to disprove global warming, but they fail,... what does THAT tell you?
It tells me that there are climate scientists trying to disprove global warming, but they fail.
For me it is working in firefox on linux with default user agent. It keeps working even after enabling javascript for the site. Worked in chrome on linux too.
You're right in that it's not always acceptable - but don't pretend it's never acceptable
When did I pretend that it's never acceptable? The only problem I pointed out is data store latency; and if that is not a problem, it sure makes sense. Heck, some servers may not even have a data store that needs updating. On the other hand, you pretended that it is always acceptable by, as you say, not using "sometimes".
Seems like we essentially agree, with different use cases in mind.
Presumably you have some way of deploying code updates to your own, non-dynamic hosts; you could use the same mechanism to bootstrap the EC2 instance.
Bootstrapping is not a problem. But once both servers are running, any action by the user and any system event would make a change in the datastore. This must be replicated real-time across the storage of both the servers. Only proper solution for this that I can think of is: mount the same storage at both the servers. This might increase the latency of data access/commit for both the servers. Even if one of the data centres has a low-latency access to the data store, locking etc. would make sure that this one also gets its performance affected.
The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host... simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising
Most servers would have a data store (database, filesystem etc.). If you want your own server and EC2 to aid each other in times of adversity, they will have to share the data store. How do you achieve this? Wouldn't common storage between different data centres (one is your own and another is EC2's) be very slow such that it would impact the performance of server processes running in both the data centres?
So I would think it makes sense to either completely go to EC2, or completely host all your own servers. What am I missing?
if anything, they'd be pleased to have the pest gone
Once Chinese government wants Google out of China, Google cannot stay for more than an hour. If Google is staying, Chinese government must want Google to stay. How desperate are the Chinese government for Google to stay is debatable, but the desperateness is greater than zero.
But if individual (small) business owners own all the hardware, overall more hardware gets sold. So Intel, AMD, Samsung, Kingston etc. companies that earn more from hardware than from support don't want Amazon to own all the hardware.
Also, Amazon knows what support service is worthless. They may not be using expensive EMC storage solutions and rather going with consumer grade hard disks like Google does. So EMC may not be happy with Amazon owning lots of hardware.
Amazon also does not pay Microsoft for virtualization solutions (it uses modified xen virtualization, last I heard). Small businesses are much more likely to buy everything from Microsoft, including virtualizaion solutions which Microsoft is not the best in. So Microsoft also may be unhappy with Amazon owning the hardware.
But a small mom-n-pop shop doesn't want your 32 GB, or Sandy Bridge. They want less than 100 billion CPU cycles per day, less than 1 GB data transfer per day. But they want an always on server with redundant cooling & power supply. They don't have the expertise for this, they cannot employ a geek because good geeks come expensive. For them it is multiple orders of magnitude cheaper to go cloud.
Seriously, I think Amazon and Google intend to be the end of the chain. They don't want to buy computing services from a third party.
They may want to, and it might be reasonable. One reason for them wanting to do this is that they are so far the top dogs in the fight and their buying from smaller players would not make economic sense. They cannot buy from each other because they have very different models - Google's "cloud" services are much more restricted than Amazon's.
But if/when more players come into this field, it might make sense for them to buy computing resources from each other. Both buyer and seller would gain. Seller gets to earn for his idle resources - these earnings would be non-zero but less than if they were selling to an end customer. Buyer, of course, avoids disappointing his customers and save his face.
Though there might always be some cloud service providers who will not buy/sell. This does not mean there is no value in cloud guys trading with each other.
There will come a day when we will upgrade too, but the main cause might be lack of updates for ext2, not the need for a journaling file system.
Why do you need updates for ext2 if it is already working fine for you? Keep using it forever. It is not that without updates working code would stop working, is it? Or you enjoy rebooting after updating the system?
Why do you need slang for everything? "Credulous" has been a word in English since before your grandfathers were born. Use it. Consult a thesaurus and you will find somewhat subtle variations too.
Slashdot Mirror
What gave you the impression that I believe that "you need to say that you are not speaking of a legal contract any time you use the word contract" ?
The person you accused of not knowing the meaning of the word contract, used the word in the legal sense. As is not uncommon with this word. The dictionary.com link that you so kindly provided, lists this definition at number 2. I understand that from high horses, it might be quite difficult for you to reach definition number 2 when it is easier to accuse others of ignorance instead.
As long as someone is using the word in at least one of the correct senses, he cannot be said to have "no idea ... what the word contract means". Since you said so, you appeared to be a specimen of the deadly combination of idiot and arrogant.
Oops, sorry. Forgot that it must be too dizzy from your high horse to be able to see clearly. Let's take it slowly, ok?
like you, he mistakenly believes the word contract always involves the Law
Please let me know where I said that the word contract always involves the Law?
thanks
Bingo
I use the term contract in its non-legal sense
1. You use a word commonly used in legal context, in a "non-legal sense". Without at first mentioning so. ... what the word contract means".
2. You expect others to understand you. Rather, you accuse them of having "no idea
Interesting. Is it fun to ride that high horse of yours?
Or---when in debugging mode you could send some insensitive unencrypted traffic. That way, people can have their encryption and network debuggers can have their not-encryption.
But the "bug" appears only when the encryption is turned on. Only for data for which encryption is turned on. Now what?
While I agree with most of your points, the browser message you suggest is too scary. A HTTPS connection based on a self-signed cert is at least as secure as plain old HTTP. A browser which does not warn against plain old HTTP does not have the moral authority to warn so severely against self-signed certs. The only thing it can say is that such a connection should not be considered "secure" simply by its being HTTPS.
But how is self-signed cert less secure than plain old HTTP? Browser does not give any warnings when encountering unencrypted HTTP "OMG, you could be hacked, unencrypted page!!!". Plain old HTTP is also susceptible to MITM attack, only you don't even need MITM attack to snoop.
In this case, one can question whether the studios have the (moral and legal) right to the actors' image beyond what they've filmed.
Which actor are you talking about? GP was talking about rendered models. Which don't even necessarily look like an existing human being: it could be totally imaginary. There is no "actor" involved.
Do you have a nose, a chin or a tongue? They come handy in such situations.
Got it! Bing is written in perl. They do regular expression matching while crawling and forgot to have a \E ... \Q escape sequence for the regex matching. They got so much perl code on CPAN, full of special characters, that somehow the crawler engine went into an infinite loop.
I propose you give me an alternate theory that predicts WHY all those changes in nature happen. (rising temperatures, rising sea-levels, changing birdtrek-paterns, migrating insects ...)
This is science we are talking about, aren't we? Lack of alternate theories does not give credence to a theory, at least in science. This is not to say there is a dearth of alternate theories.
there are climate scientists trying to disprove global warming, but they fail,... what does THAT tell you?
It tells me that there are climate scientists trying to disprove global warming, but they fail.
But stupid customers are so easy to part from their money. Companies can't just resist loving stupid customers.
For me it is working in firefox on linux with default user agent. It keeps working even after enabling javascript for the site. Worked in chrome on linux too.
You're right in that it's not always acceptable - but don't pretend it's never acceptable
When did I pretend that it's never acceptable? The only problem I pointed out is data store latency; and if that is not a problem, it sure makes sense. Heck, some servers may not even have a data store that needs updating. On the other hand, you pretended that it is always acceptable by, as you say, not using "sometimes".
Seems like we essentially agree, with different use cases in mind.
Which is why I said it makes sense to either completely go the EC2 way, or completely roll your own. You don't get to say
The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host .... you'll magically handle the spikes without a problem ...
(Italics yours, bold mine)
when it works only by increased database latency.
Presumably you have some way of deploying code updates to your own, non-dynamic hosts; you could use the same mechanism to bootstrap the EC2 instance.
Bootstrapping is not a problem. But once both servers are running, any action by the user and any system event would make a change in the datastore. This must be replicated real-time across the storage of both the servers. Only proper solution for this that I can think of is: mount the same storage at both the servers. This might increase the latency of data access/commit for both the servers. Even if one of the data centres has a low-latency access to the data store, locking etc. would make sure that this one also gets its performance affected.
The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host ... simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising
Most servers would have a data store (database, filesystem etc.). If you want your own server and EC2 to aid each other in times of adversity, they will have to share the data store. How do you achieve this? Wouldn't common storage between different data centres (one is your own and another is EC2's) be very slow such that it would impact the performance of server processes running in both the data centres?
So I would think it makes sense to either completely go to EC2, or completely host all your own servers. What am I missing?
if anything, they'd be pleased to have the pest gone
Once Chinese government wants Google out of China, Google cannot stay for more than an hour. If Google is staying, Chinese government must want Google to stay. How desperate are the Chinese government for Google to stay is debatable, but the desperateness is greater than zero.
But if individual (small) business owners own all the hardware, overall more hardware gets sold. So Intel, AMD, Samsung, Kingston etc. companies that earn more from hardware than from support don't want Amazon to own all the hardware.
Also, Amazon knows what support service is worthless. They may not be using expensive EMC storage solutions and rather going with consumer grade hard disks like Google does. So EMC may not be happy with Amazon owning lots of hardware.
Amazon also does not pay Microsoft for virtualization solutions (it uses modified xen virtualization, last I heard). Small businesses are much more likely to buy everything from Microsoft, including virtualizaion solutions which Microsoft is not the best in. So Microsoft also may be unhappy with Amazon owning the hardware.
But a small mom-n-pop shop doesn't want your 32 GB, or Sandy Bridge. They want less than 100 billion CPU cycles per day, less than 1 GB data transfer per day. But they want an always on server with redundant cooling & power supply. They don't have the expertise for this, they cannot employ a geek because good geeks come expensive. For them it is multiple orders of magnitude cheaper to go cloud.
Seriously, I think Amazon and Google intend to be the end of the chain. They don't want to buy computing services from a third party.
They may want to, and it might be reasonable. One reason for them wanting to do this is that they are so far the top dogs in the fight and their buying from smaller players would not make economic sense. They cannot buy from each other because they have very different models - Google's "cloud" services are much more restricted than Amazon's.
But if/when more players come into this field, it might make sense for them to buy computing resources from each other. Both buyer and seller would gain. Seller gets to earn for his idle resources - these earnings would be non-zero but less than if they were selling to an end customer. Buyer, of course, avoids disappointing his customers and save his face.
Though there might always be some cloud service providers who will not buy/sell. This does not mean there is no value in cloud guys trading with each other.
They are supposed to do basic admission control if they want to be viewed as a professional service provider. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_control
There will come a day when we will upgrade too, but the main cause might be lack of updates for ext2, not the need for a journaling file system.
Why do you need updates for ext2 if it is already working fine for you? Keep using it forever. It is not that without updates working code would stop working, is it? Or you enjoy rebooting after updating the system?
Since you know it is not a noun, try not to use it as one.
"Oh, you just go along with every new gadget fad, even if it is junk, you are too credulous!"
Not too hard, was it?
Why do you need slang for everything? "Credulous" has been a word in English since before your grandfathers were born. Use it. Consult a thesaurus and you will find somewhat subtle variations too.
TCP header contents would also be unencrypted, right? Port number etc. ?